Famine, Affluence, And Morality By Peter Singer

Improved Essays
Within the text of “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer delves into the topic of famine; and more specifically, the moral obligations people have to those who are suffering. For example, Singer focuses on the population of East Bengal, and their struggle with famine and extreme poverty. Singer proposes that with enough aid from both individuals and various governments poverty can be eradicated. Therefore the question he presents is why some people are dying, while other people are spending excess money on luxuries? Singer argues that affluent people, living in affluent countries, are not helping developing countries by giving enough to alleviate extreme poverty.
The first point made by Singer is that the way people in prosperous
…show more content…
Singer believes that the social distinction between duty and charity must be reconsidered. Furthermore, charity should no longer be seen as a supererogatory act, or rather an act that is socially perceived as virtuous but has no social consequences if ignored. His argument is that people should not spend money on luxuries, as they have a moral obligation to give money to those in need. Singer briefly notes the objection of proximity that people often have towards his main argument. Some may be apprehensive about giving their excess money to people in distant countries, while there are local people with similar needs. However, Singer argues that “it makes no moral difference” (Singer, 231) whether the person in need is someone you have a close relationship with or a person on the other side of the world with whom you will never meet. His opinion is that everyone in need deserves an equal opportunity to get help, and the distance to those people makes no difference. Singer also argues that individuals should not rely on their government to help those in need. Instead it is the individual’s duties to both give their excess money as well as to campaign for governments to step up and help deprived countries. In Singer’s conclusion he argues that the strongest way to …show more content…
I feel that this claim is implausible because I have a relationship with those in my community, and those relationships cannot be separated from the concept of a moral obligation. People choose to live communally in order to create social bonds, which in turn, increase probability of aiding each other when in need. In helping a person who is geographically closer to me, I am able to systematically evaluate their needs, and therefore better assist said person. Furthermore, by helping a person with whom I share a community there is a greater expected benefit once the person’s life has improved. By saying this, I am assuming that after the person closer to me was assisted, they would in turn help others in the community until poverty, and famine, were eradicated from my

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Peter Singer’s essay “What Should a Billionaire Give” discusses the harsh truth of global poverty that many individuals suffer through due to living in a developing country. In his essay, he tells the story of Bill and Melinda Gates making the decision to take it upon themselves and donate to those in need via the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. For any human, it is his or her civic obligation to care about the needs of others, whether the needs are physiological or based on safety. In order to provide for the basic needs of the poor, it is vital to understand how individuals respond to poverty, how war affects poverty, and how poverty can be related to psychology.…

    • 1073 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    To refrain from doing this would be a moral failure on our part. Although it can be debated to what extent we are obligated, the obligation remains the same. Overall, to reject Singer’s conclusions would be to infer that certain people are more deserving of happiness than others, going against the Consequentialist aim of creating the greatest happiness overall. Therefore, I believe that whatever wealth we can spare we are obligated to give to those who, without it, will continue to suffer…

    • 1315 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Therefore, people are morally obligated to perform. Singer defends this point by identifying the fallacious idea associated with proximity citing that individuals are no more obligated to save a person near them than they are to save someone halfway around the Earth. In further defense of his position, Singer refers to the misconception that because there are other individuals that are equally capable of saving someone, does not morally excuse one from saving the person.…

    • 290 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In John Stuart Mill’s influential book “Utilitarianism”, Mill introduces the belief that moral action is based upon the concept of utility, or how he explains it, the greatest happiness principle. It is this greatest happiness principle that defines Utilitarianism as the notion that the best moral actions are those that promote the most amount of human happiness. Actions that would be regarded as the least favorable are those that promote the opposite, unhappiness. The concept of Utilitarianism and that of Consequentialism are similar as both judge the moral value of an action dependent on its consequences, however each claim leads to different conclusions.…

    • 1497 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Where Singer's guideline dictates, “If it is in our power to prevent something very bad happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance we ought to do it” (147). Narveson withstands that there is a division between principles in the abstract to be weighted against potential outcomes and policies that are “pursued in the real world, (where) facts cannot be ignored” (145). Further, what we are committed to do (justice) and what might be ethically virtuous for us to do, charity. Resisting arguments that we should compel others into action, Narveson states that while it is virtuous to aid to others, it is never it is never morally tolerable to force someone to be charitable. Charity depends on empathy and is an activity that flows from the heart.…

    • 816 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Singer does not provide criteria to decide on what is morally comparable. Also, I will deny Singer’s conclusion that we are obligated to donate as much as we can to help end poverty. I will argue that donating to charity is supererogatory, which means that donating to charity is not obligated, but instead a positive thing to do. I will also deny his second premise which states that it is our moral responsibility to prevent bad things from happening to other people.…

    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Singer’s argument is extremely flawed, especially when suggesting the general public to donate all extra money beyond necessities (Shafer-Landau 229). Suggesting such is, essentially, violating one’s autonomy to force one to donate one’s earnings. Singer, also, would be incorrect to consider that dining at a restaurant, and watching movies at the theater could be unnecessary. Some individuals need to relieve stress by going out or watching television, and stress is ultimately bad for one’s health, so one would be obligated to relieve stress. Narveson merely recommends that human beings do not have an responsibility to benefit one another, but does not suggest that one should not (Shafer-Landau 231).…

    • 831 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    What Makes the World Go Round Professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer, explains in the article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” that all prosperous people should give all money that is not needed for basic necessities to places that are in need of food and medicine. As an American, I have knowledge this argument would shake up America as a whole. This could create a world of giving up the Capitalistic ways of America and the economic food chain. On the other hand, it could create a world of kindness and less violence. Can you imagine giving up your freedom to help others?…

    • 1058 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    it’s your moral responsibility to save the child even though there are a lot of people around (Singer, 1972). From this analogy he argues that if everyone would relieve sufferings one way or another, the entire suffering population will be benefited. But, some people look at others and decide not to help. Singer argues that it’s still that person’s moral responsibility to help; now it becomes that one individual must contribute a larger amount due to the greediness of…

    • 1468 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Everyday millions of people around the world suffer in circumstances, in which they could die from lack of proper care and resources. In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer acknowledges this issue facing humanity and argues for the moral obligation to give large amounts of money to those in need. Singer believes that all who are able should be giving up many, if not all of their luxuries to help give the less fortunate their necessities. I will begin by summarizing the argument that Singer dictates in his article and then explain my reasoning for believing his notions to be sound and valid.…

    • 2212 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Singer Famine Analysis

    • 1672 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Since the mid of twentieth century, the rapid development of scientific technologies has promoted the world economy to increase largely so as to fasten the process of globalization. However, as the global connection has become increasingly intimate, there is a range of global problems such as famine and poverty. While many ethists have studied these problems by holding different arguments, Singer is the one whose point of view respecting to the question whether or not we have the duty to help the victims of famine and poverty in some distant poor countries is the most representative and controversial as well. In fact, Singer’s ethical principle is based on general utilitarianism and even distribution of benefits. Firstly, he synthesizes both…

    • 1672 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    He does this first by presenting a drowning child situation that attempts to convince people to agree with his main moral principle that people are morally obligated to prevent bad things from happening that would not result in a loss of something of equal moral value. Singer claims that should a person agree that one is morally obligated to save a drowning child with the cost of dirtying their clothes, they therefore must also agree to donate their surplus of money until they themselves are in poverty, because doing so would not risk anything of equal moral value. Contrary to Singer’s argument, one might still be able to agree with his main moral principle without donating all of their money to help prevent poverty. It follows logically this main moral principle is equally applicable to other issues such as the environment, as the degradation of the environment is another bad thing that is preventable to the same extent as poverty. With critical analyzes of Singer’s argument, it may be concluded that one may consistently agree with the initial premises of Singer’s argument without agreement to his conclusion of morally obligatory…

    • 1478 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In other words, the point of marginal utility is where happiness begins to plateau in regards to extraneous wealth. To Singer, this money would be much more appreciated by someone whose suffering could be ended, rather than someone whose happiness is unaffected by it. Furthermore, Singer argues that affluent societies should not send aid merely because they have the desire to do, but because they have a moral obligation to do…

    • 1033 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Singer advocates that an individual practice marginal utility, which is when the person giving reaches the same material level as the person who is receiving the charity (236). His claim for this follows that it would alleviate the…

    • 866 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Life You Can Save Argument

    • 1197 Words
    • 5 Pages

    However, Mr. John Arthur has a very different approach; believing that every person has a right to their entitlement and earnings. Mr. John believes that moral codes are created and that it is not in human nature to give aid to others. Mr. John believes that Mr. Singer’s idea would backfire due to the following reasons: disincentive work, social conflict, guilt which would result in declination of contribution. I agree with John Arthur about the idea that people would give less to charity if they went by Peter Singer’s moral ethic code, of ought to help other if you are meeting your basic needs. Most people, especially in today’s society, feel they are entitled to their…

    • 1197 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics